Which bullet you say? well Check out this test...

[Predator56]

I haven't asked Barnes, but I know they hold together just fine at a lot higher speed than I expected. 130s shoot accurately enough and hold together at 3500 FPS, I had an XLC 150 shed a petal after going through a lot of bone at 3200, It may have shed more petals but didn't see any evidence of that. I didn't find any more pieces.

My experience with cup and core bullets is that above 3000, terminal performance becomes a question. Above 3200 it tends more to the bullet coming undone and penetration become less predictable for cup and core bullets.

3500 FPS is almost 1000 FPS faster than the tests at the head of this thread were done. What we do know from past experience is that if we start pushing cup and core bullets that fast they are much more likely to come undone. Nosler Partitions often completely shed their front core at lower velocities and once that happens they tend more to tumble. Tumbling can and does lead to loss of the rear core. ie: Bullet failure. Nosler Ballistic Tips clearly from the photo are already marginal at <2700, and the author relates claims of the bullet failing "often" at 2900. It is doubtful to me that cup and core bullets can perform well at the upper limits of monometal velocity and asking them to try to compete there is just plain wrong. They are not designed to do that.

The point is that the monometals are designed to do more at much higher velocity. Comparing them to cup and core performance is much akin to comparing cup and core bullets to cast lead bullets. The latter cannot begin to perform where the former is designed to work best.

by cup and core are you lumping corelokts and north forks into the same category? I dont think some of the better bonded bullets (north fork, a-frame, XP3) would have problems above 3000k and I think some cup and cores would expand more reliably below 2000 when compared to monometal bullets..

 

[miles58]

I went through Fackler's stuff once. If I remember right he is dealing with a lot lower velocity than we hunt with.

 

[Predator56]

besides the TSX, whats wrong with how this test compared the accubond, interbond, and ballistic tip?

 

[WTM45]

besides the TSX, whats wrong with how this test compared the accubond, interbond, and ballistic tip?

I see the expense that would be involved, but I'd rather see the average and extreme/deviation of at least ten shots of each than only one shot of each.

I do see the photos of the gelatin as being informative. And I think ANY projectile can fail to perform as intended, including a Barnes. It is just that simple.

 

[miles58]

besides the TSX, whats wrong with how this test compared the accubond, interbond, and ballistic tip?

You don't seriously need an answer to that do you? A BT is a whole different bullet than a Partition, not intended to perform the same way and a Partition or Accubond/Interbond.

Pick an arbitrary speed and test them against anything and it is just as useless a test. Doesn't tell you what the BT is good for, doesn't tell you what a Partition is good for, just that you can make one or the other looks better or worse as you change speeds.

 

[miles58]

by cup and core are you lumping corelokts and north forks into the same category? I dont think some of the better bonded bullets (north fork, a-frame, XP3) would have problems above 3000k and I think some cup and cores would expand more reliably below 2000 when compared to monometal bullets..

Now you are starting to get the idea, show me what the bullet is good for! Make the test useful for something.

Lumping Core Lokt, A-Frames, Interbonds etc together and comparing them at arbitrarily high/low velocities does not inform us. But, we do know that fragile bullets tend to come undone faster at higher velocity and tougher bullets less so. So, test them at their optimum impact velocity and show me what they do. That's unbiased test that can produce useful information.

 

[Predator56]

how likely are you to ever shoot game consistently @ optimum impact velocity?

IMO, you are way over analyzing this....maybe its just me

TSX and failsafes will probably always out penetrate others and do not lose much weight or expand as wide up front

Cup and cores will expand very reliably @ low to moderate speeds and kill thin skinned game well @ those speeds but could be a poor choice for high speed shots especially on bone

Bonded bullets probably bridge the gap between the monometal and cup and core bullets... THey expand widely @ times (usually higher impact velocities) but still retain weight and dont "blow up" on high speed shoulder shots...THey may not penetrate like a TSX but they will expand wider usually...

I dont need to call barnes or nosler @ ask them what the Optimum impact speed is for a 165 grain ballistic tip/ TSX is before i go deer hunting. I need to know the velocity range they expect the bullet to work in because I dont hunt in one spot @ expect the deer to step out at the given range where my bullet will be in its "optimum" velocity

 

[miles58]

how likely are you to ever shoot game consistently @ optimum impact velocity?

IMO, you are way over analyzing this....maybe its just me

TSX and failsafes will probably always out penetrate others and do not lose much weight or expand as wide up front

See, this is where paying attention is important In your cited test the TSX had the second greatest expansion with much greater penetration than the bullet that had the greatest expansion. And, much greater penetration than the closest cup and core bullets to it's expanded diameter.

Cup and cores will expand very reliably @ low to moderate speeds and kill thin skinned game well @ those speeds but could be a poor choice for high speed shots especially on bone

Again, referring to the cited test report does the BT look like reliable expansion at low-moderate velocity? I would judge that by comparing it to the other cup and cores as marginal at best

Bonded bullets probably bridge the gap between the monometal and cup and core bullets... THey expand widely @ times (usually higher impact velocities) but still retain weight and dont "blow up" on high speed shoulder shots...THey may not penetrate like a TSX but they will expand wider usually...

Your cited test refutes that now doesn't it?


I dont need to call barnes or nosler @ ask them what the Optimum impact speed is for a 165 grain ballistic tip/ TSX is before i go deer hunting. I need to know the velocity range they expect the bullet to work in because I dont hunt in one spot @ expect the deer to step out at the given range where my bullet will be in its "optimum" velocity

Nor do I. I tune my rifles and ammunition to give me the best margin for error I can get out of the combination. I do this in terms of accuracy and performance when it hits game. Last year I used an '06 with Speer flat base spitzers simply because I couldn't make a Barnes 130 grain TSX shoot accurately enough at the velocity I wanted because the Speers gave me better performance with that gun. This year I could push TTSXs faster and more accurately and I gave the Speers to a hunter whose rifle put them into itty-bitty groups.

Two deer I shot this year were out of the same stand. One at 140 yards and one at 25 yards. I stopped the 25 yard deer because closer is a little harder to look at through the scope and put the bullet exactly where you want it. Out of that box stand I can see deer as far away as six hundred yards but I am not willing to pull one down beyond 350.

If I can get bullets that provide the accuracy I need, the performance on game I need and the margin to do both with plenty of forgiveness I take it. Every time. I have on occasion found it to be quite useful over the years. If you are unwilling to settle for second best, then you just have to know the best when you're looking at it, and how to take advantage of it.